ML19210B504

Applicants' Answer to AEC Objections to & Motion for Reconsideration of 730531 Order.Requests Time for Responses to Intervenors' Discovery Requests to Be Extended to 730712

ML19210B504
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	06/28/1973
From:	Trowbridge G METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 7911090075
Download: ML19210B504 (5)

Text

-

+

June 28, 1973 UNITED STATES OF A'1 ERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of METROPOLITAN EDISON CCMPANY, ET AL Docket No. 50-289 (Three Mile Island nuclear Station, Unit 1)

APPLICANTS ' ANSWER TO STAFF'S OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION

, FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER OF MAY 31. 1973 On June 22, 1973, the regulatory staff (Staff) filed with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in this proceeding (Board) the " Staff's Objections to and Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of May 31, 1973," issued by the Board following a prehearing conference conducted on May 2I4, 1973 Pursuant to 10 CFR $2.730(c) of the Atomic Energy Commission's (Commi,ssion's) Rules of Practice, 10 CFR Part 2, Metropolitan Edison Company, Jersey Central Power & Light Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company (Applicants) by this Answer take the following position with respect to the Staff's Motion: 2:./

1! Applica.ts have adopted the Staff's format (i.e., grouping of arguments into Sections I, II, III, and IV) for purposes of this Answer.

1584 225 7911090 O 7$-

I.

Applicants have no quarrel with the Staff's view of the present state of the law related to challenges in individual licensing proceedings to Commission regulations, including published regulations which are currently the subject of rule-making proceedings. Applicants do not read the Board's May 31 Order as precluding the possibility of a showing of "special circumstances" for a challenge to the Commission's regulations, but only as a recognition that no such showing has to date been made by Citizens for a Safe Environment and Environmental Coali-tion on Nuclear Power (Intervenors). Applicants would, of course, have no objection to further clarification of the Board's Order.in this respect.

Applicants would also consider it useful for the Board to amplify its instructions with respect to contentions involving the environmental effects of fuel cycle activities other than activities at the plant site, or involving the transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes to or from the plant site. As stated'by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (Appeal Board) in the Shoreham proceeding, 2/

consideration of the impact of such fuel cycle activities is outside the scope of licensing proceedings by virtue of the Appeal Board's rulings in the Vermont Yankee proceeding 3/

and the fact that the Notice of Proposed Rule Mr. king on the Environmental Effects of the Uranium Fuel Cycle S/ expressly 2/ Lonc Island Lirhtine Comrany (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station),

ALAB-9y, EAI- 72-2, p . 53 (F eb ruary 1, 1973) .

3/ Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Ccrporation (Yankee Nuclear Pc?er Station), ALab-50, daSM-lalo 395 (June 6, 1972 ,

ALAB-73, WASH-1218 (Suppl. 1) 495 (October 11, 1972)).

.S/37 Fed. Reg. 24191 (1972).

1584 226

. provided t' ' the holdings by the Appe~' Board in the

. Vermont Yankee proceeding "shall continue in effect unless and until modified by promulgation of a regulation or other Commission action."

II.

While Applicants requested a ruling from the Board on the allowability of the six contentions 5!/ referenced in the Staff Motion, Applicants have no objection to the alternative approach adopted by the Board, i.e., of permitting Intervenors to revise those contentions while instructing the Intervenors as to the allowability of contentions con-stituting an attack on AEC regulations or involving the environmental effects of fuel cycle activities.

III.

ya On the ground that "more meaningful and substantive matters could be accomplished at a prehearing conference held after the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards ( ACRS )

meeting on the subject facility [ presently anticipated to be heldAugustp,-11, 1973]," the Staff has requested that the next*prehearing conference be held during 'he week of August 13, 1973, rather than during the week of July 30, 1973, as th; Board contemplates. Applicants oppose this request. The scheduling of the ACES meeting to consider this facility has already been delayed for two months from a 5! Contentions a, f, g, 15 (second), 16 and 17.

e s

1584 227

s prIviously anticipated June meeting to the presently estimated August date. $/ As was pointed out at the prehearing conference on May 24, 1973, schedule changes of this type are not uncommon occurrences. 2/' Thus, while Applicants at present know of no reason why the August ACRS date might be delayed still further, such may be the case. Further, it is highly doubtful that the ACRS report of their meeting on the facility would in any event be available to the parties'during the week of August 13 Applicants also wish to advise the Licensing Board that Applicants' counsel anticipates a possible schedule conflict with another licensing proceeding if the next prehearing conference in this proceeding is scheduled during the week of August 13, 1973 IV.

Intervenors' counsel has today informed Applicants' counsel that he is at the end of the day mailing a substantial number of discovery requests, some of which will, in the opinion of Applicants' counsel, require tore than one week for response. Intervenors' counsel has also authorized Applicants' counsel to advise the Board

$/Tr. 18.

Z/Tr. 42.

1584 228

• m e-that he would have no objection to a one-week extension of the time for response to such requests. Accordingly, Appficants request that the time for responses to Intervenors' discovery requests be exte ed one week to July 12, 1973 RAspectfully submitted,

. SHAW, P u?AN, "" 1S s TROWBRIDGE By /A/ kytk' ,W

%/

r

~ G'eorge F. Trowbricge Counsel for Applicants -

Dated: June 28, 1973 e

ts 5- 1584 229